Chunni Lal Baheti Vs. A.D.J. No. 1 and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - joshi learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single judge has failed to analyse the provisions of section 111 of the act in right perspective.n.n. mathur, j.1. we have heard mr. j.p. joshi learned counsel for the appellant and mr. ashok soni learned counsel for the respondent cavetor.2. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant special appeal is not worth admission. that 2nd respondent bharat lal filed a suit under the provisions of trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the act) in the court of district judge, jodhpur seeking injunction against the appellant to restrain him from using the registered trade mark bic for which he was entitled to use exclusively. the trial court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but the same was vacated by the learned single judge of this court. the matter was carried to the apex court. the apex court while dismissing the special leave to appeal by order dated 9.5.2001 directed to trial court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the suit within six months. it is relevant to mention here that a rectification application was also filed by the appellant before the gujarat high court on 11.12.2000 for suitable amendment in the registration certificate. the said application for rectification is still pending. thus, the application was filed under section 111 of the act with a prayer to stay the proceedings till the disposal of the rectification application before the gujarat high court. the said application has been rejected by the order of the trial court on 13th august, 2002. the petitioner challenged the said order by way of petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india. the learned single judge confirmed the finding of the trial court to the effect that unless and until the case of the defendant falls within the purview of section 111 of the act the proceedings in the pending suit cannot be stayed. the learned single judge also observed that as the apex court has directed the trial court to decide the suit within the time framed provided by the order of the apex court no interference is called for in exercise of powers under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india.3. it is contended by mr. j.p. joshi learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single judge has failed to analyse the provisions of section 111 of the act in right perspective. as regards the time framed for disposal, it is submitted that the apex court has not restricted the parties to avail their rights if available in law.4. we have been told that the proceedings before the trial court are almost at the conclusion. it is submitted by mr. ashok soni learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent that he will conclude his arguments before the trial court by tomorrow. as proceedings before the trial court is at the verge of conclusion as per the directions of the apex court, we are of the view that the learned single judge has rightly refused to interfere with the order of the trial court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the constitution of india. both the parties have also addressed us on the question of stay of further proceedings before the trial court under the provisions of section 111 of the act and cited number of authorities. the view taken by the trial court and the learned single judge with respect to stay of proceedings under section 111 of the act cannot be said to the perverse. further keeping in view the directions of the apex court and the fact that the trial is at the verge of conclusion, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of learned single judge.5. consequently we find no merit in the special appeal and the same is dismissed.